Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

This does not change much what I said, since Sweden would (as alleged) be requested from the US.

It does not, but it prevents obstruction of freedom of speech, and in particular freedom to let people know about the crimes that the West commits in wars and that have been leaked in the Wikileaks affair.

Of course, there are no direct evidence that the US Government is trying to do just that, as it would be extremely surprising to find a mail from Hillary Clinton asking to someone in the Swedish Government to mob Assange.
But there is a lot of evidence that points to that direction and that gives ground to legitimate suspicion that the US may be interested in mobbing Assange and silencing him.

And the evidence is:

1) that Wikileaks have caused a tremendous amount of damage to the US Government
2) that the crimes that have been shown in the leaks have not been prosecuted
3) that there is a blatant bias in how US justice prosecutes some crimes and do not prosecute others
4) that there is a blatant bias in how the UK Government tries to extradite some “criminals” and protects other “criminals”
..

Of course, for each of the above point you can find a perfect legal expalnation on why things went like that, as you can find a legal explanation for many if not all the crimes that have been in history, since most of the worst crimes have been done in a perfectly legal way.
So much for the “perfectly legal” side of the issue.

So, in my opinion, even if people do not believe that Assange is innocent, they should ask themselves if they are OK with all the four points above.

If they are OK with that, I have not much to say

Do you mean things like Ecuador's National Police Commander Jaime Aquilino Hurtado's possible involvement in schemes to extort bribes from a taxi union, steal public funds and ease trafficking of undocumented Chinese immigrants? Those kinds of crimes? I don't think the U.S. has jurisdiction.

Do you mean things like Ecuador's National Police Commander Jaime Aquilino Hurtado's possible involvement in schemes to extort bribes from a taxi union, steal public funds and ease trafficking of undocumented Chinese immigrants? Those kinds of crimes? I don't think the U.S. has jurisdiction.

While I have to admit there was information in the leaked diplomatic cables that was embarrassing to the US, still, Assange was the person responsible for releasing the cable containing information that the head of Ecuador's National Police was crooked.
I would hope that most people would consider that to be a scandal. I understand some people take the idea of 'face' very seriously, and will go to great lengths to get revenge on someone they perceive to have wronged them.

One of the questions you keep asking is why Ecuador would take in Assange, an accused rapist, if they didn't think there was a conspiracy against him. I've always had to say "I don't know", which is the literal truth, but frankly, I thought it was just a petty way to annoy the US by a leader that is on the outs with it.

But consider: Assange has been in the embassy now for quite awhile. Outside the evil clutches of the U.S., the UK, and Sweden. And now we're told he's become very ill. Is this just a coincidence?
Perhaps Ecuador's leadership is taking advantage of a chance opportunity to rid themselves of a person who helped embarrass them.

While I have to admit there was information in the leaked diplomatic cables that was embarrassing to the US, still, Assange was the person responsible for releasing the cable containing information that the head of Ecuador's National Police was crooked.

And?

Originally Posted by TjW

I would hope that most people would consider that to be a scandal. I understand some people take the idea of 'face' very seriously, and will go to great lengths to get revenge on someone they perceive to have wronged them.

So, in your opinion, Ecuador should have not protected Assange, as he showed up the wrong things that their Government did

Originally Posted by TjW

One of the questions you keep asking is why Ecuador would take in Assange, an accused rapist, if they didn't think there was a conspiracy against him. I've always had to say "I don't know", which is the literal truth, but frankly, I thought it was just a petty way to annoy the US by a leader that is on the outs with it.

Maybe.
Or maybe it is you who is on the side of the US/UK/Sweden and do not want to take into consideration possibilities.
Still, from an objective point of view it is strange that people stay always (or almost) on the side of what their Governments tell them

Originally Posted by TjW

But consider: Assange has been in the embassy now for quite awhile. Outside the evil clutches of the U.S., the UK, and Sweden. And now we're told he's become very ill. Is this just a coincidence?
Perhaps Ecuador's leadership is taking advantage of a chance opportunity to rid themselves of a person who helped embarrass them.

And on what grounds is Assange embarassing Ecuador?
You are just using your own line of thought without taking into cosndieration many facts.
Is the fact that 12 Head of States in South America supported the right of Ecuador to give asylum to Assange embarassing Ecaudor?

For some unfathomable reason Cambridge has cancelled his videolink appearance. Apparently it doesn't have anything to do with his alleged status as a rapist, liar, scumbag and insecure fantasist of mass impregnation and worldwide worship and autonomy. A mere technical difficulty.

Nothing at *********** all.

We 'eard it all before ya bleedin numbskulls

__________________"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle - Checklist of Rationality Habits http://rationality.org/checklist/
"I took a bite out of the earth. Sorry, I was drunk." - Joey McGee
"I can't think that it would be terrible of me to say — and it is occasionally true — that I need physics more than friends." - J. Robert Oppenheimer

Assange was the person responsible for releasing the cable containing information that the head of Ecuador's National Police was crooked.
I would hope that most people would consider that to be a scandal.

But consider: Assange has been in the embassy now for quite awhile. And now we're told he's become very ill. Is this just a coincidence?

Perhaps Ecuador's leadership is taking advantage of a chance opportunity to rid themselves of a person who helped embarrass them.

In running away from a ghost, has he run into a tiger?

__________________Crank works have one advantage: they don't really lose anything in translation. Skeptic
That's the beauty of Paranormal claims - there are no failures, only newly discovered restrictions on the ability. Ashles

And?
So, in your opinion, Ecuador should have not protected Assange, as he showed up the wrong things that their Government did

Maybe.
Or maybe it is you who is on the side of the US/UK/Sweden and do not want to take into consideration possibilities.
Still, from an objective point of view it is strange that people stay always (or almost) on the side of what their Governments tell them

And on what grounds is Assange embarassing Ecuador?
You are just using your own line of thought without taking into cosndieration many facts.
Is the fact that 12 Head of States in South America supported the right of Ecuador to give asylum to Assange embarassing Ecaudor?

First, we've been over the Heads of State thing before. Briefly, they have good reason to support the enforcement of treaty rights even if they despise both Assange and Ecuador. Is that all you got? Many people even on this thread support the right of sovereign states to give asylum. We're even resigned to the fact that that right may be abused from time to time.

No. I'm saying it's strange. Sure, the U.S. had an unflattering opinion of the police chief. But it wasn't the U.S. that advertised his misdeeds on the world stage, embarrassing Ecuador. Indeed, they classified the communication about this opinion "Secret" even though the facts were known in Ecuador. It was Assange that gave those facts worldwide publicity.

So one could take the position that he embarrassed Ecuador when he allowed the information about the crookedness of its police chief to be published.

But there isn't much they can do about it. So, they smile, gritting their teeth, and wait. "Oh, no, we're not angry. You embarrassed people we don't like. Come and visit some time."
And when he takes up that offer, just coincidentally, he gets sick. But what if it isn't a coincidence? What if this is the revenge of a powerful person who feels Assange embarrassed his country?
Assange wasn't sick when he went in, so this isn't something the U.S., the UK, or Sweden dosed him with.

And note, this is not something my government is telling me. I'm pretty sure you read this particular interpretation (or misinterpretation) of events here first. It's got every bit as much evidence as the U.S./UK/Sweden conspiracy theory. That is to say, none except speculation. It's actually simpler, because it only requires one group inside one government to take advantage of Assange's rape accusation. No coordination between governments is required.
So yes, I'm taking my own line of thought, rather than yours, or my government's. I thought you were in favor of thinking for yourself. Is this no longer true?
Or should we only think for ourselves if we come to the same conclusion you do?

First, we've been over the Heads of State thing before. Briefly, they have good reason to support the enforcement of treaty rights even if they despise both Assange and Ecuador. Is that all you got? Many people even on this thread support the right of sovereign states to give asylum. We're even resigned to the fact that that right may be abused from time to time.

Were this the case, it would be easy for them to add a line saying “All this said, we do not think Ecuador should have protected an alleged raper”.
Strangely enough, there is no statement against Ecuador position in the UNASUR document.
Even more strange Lula, former President of Brazil, has openly called said that the US are behind the prosecution of Assange due to Wikileaks.

Originally Posted by TjW

No. I'm saying it's strange. Sure, the U.S. had an unflattering opinion of the police chief. But it wasn't the U.S. that advertised his misdeeds on the world stage, embarrassing Ecuador. Indeed, they classified the communication about this opinion "Secret" even though the facts were known in Ecuador. It was Assange that gave those facts worldwide publicity.

So one could take the position that he embarrassed Ecuador when he allowed the information about the crookedness of its police chief to be published.

But there isn't much they can do about it. So, they smile, gritting their teeth, and wait. "Oh, no, we're not angry. You embarrassed people we don't like. Come and visit some time."
And when he takes up that offer, just coincidentally, he gets sick. But what if it isn't a coincidence? What if this is the revenge of a powerful person who feels Assange embarrassed his country?
Assange wasn't sick when he went in, so this isn't something the U.S., the UK, or Sweden dosed him with.

And note, this is not something my government is telling me. I'm pretty sure you read this particular interpretation (or misinterpretation) of events here first. It's got every bit as much evidence as the U.S./UK/Sweden conspiracy theory. That is to say, none except speculation. It's actually simpler, because it only requires one group inside one government to take advantage of Assange's rape accusation. No coordination between governments is required.
So yes, I'm taking my own line of thought, rather than yours, or my government's. I thought you were in favor of thinking for yourself. Is this no longer true?
Or should we only think for ourselves if we come to the same conclusion you do?

Maybe it is like you say.
Maybe Ecuador is doing all this just to stir a little bit the US for their own political reasons.
Maybe they were not happy at all with some of the leaks when they showed up their own wrongdoing.
This said, the main issue that you, and all the other posters in this thread have is that, even if Ecuador moves are politically motivated, there is even more evidence pointing to the UK/US/Sweden moves may be politically motivated.
However, all the posters here may agree that Ecuador is behaving for some political reasons, but they quickly dismiss that their own governments may act for political reasons.
Why?
There is only one explanation for this mentality: the “us vs them” frame of mind!! http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=247475

Were this the case, it would be easy for them to add a line saying “All this said, we do not think Ecuador should have protected an alleged raper”.

Why would UNASUR want to throw one of their members under the bus that way?

Quote:

Strangely enough, there is no statement against Ecuador position in the UNASUR document.

Nothing strange about it. Ecuador's an UNASUR member. It's unlikely they're going to publish a document that repudiates one of their own.

Did you notice the basis for UNASUR unity? They're not coming together and expressing agreement about the Assange case. They're coming together and expressing agreement about the institution of asylum.

Don't you think it's notable that when one of their members grants Assange asylum, they all talk about how important asylum is, but completely avoid any mention of Assange's case?

Quote:

Even more strange Lula, former President of Brazil, has openly called said that the US are behind the prosecution of Assange due to Wikileaks.

What's strange about it, other than UNASUR is obviously not interested in making a statement that agrees with Lula?

And I'll tell you what: The moment Lula presents evidence to support his claims about US involvement, I'll take his claims seriously.

You've presented Lula's claims as evidence to support your claims. But where's the evidence to support Lula's claims?

even if Ecuador moves are politically motivated, there is even more evidence pointing to the UK/US/Sweden moves may be politically motivated

Even if you think that there is evidence of political motivations all over the place there is even more evidence that there are specific women that accuse Assange of specific instances of sexual assault.

There is even more evidence that these women exist, and that they accuse him of assault.

There is the evidence that Assange has admitted sleeping with them, and that he has admitted that they weren't happy with his behaviour.

If they are saying his sexual behaviour wasn't consensual, and the local police have found enough reason to put it to trial, why should he be able to walk away from the legal process? Because he had some freedom of movement while they were investigating? Are you saying that he shouldn't have to deal with these accusations?

He may or may not think he has done anything criminal, but he isn't immune from having the evidence of his behaviour tested in a court of law when someone complains and is held to be credible enough

And why did they let him wander around London on bail before he went to the embassy? How does that work with the idea that they were trying to entrap him? For someone who is the object of such "extreme measures" he certainly seems to have had a lot of freedom to play with. He was not prevented from leaving Sweden on the assumption he would come back for interviews. That doesn't sound like he's in imminent danger of rendition, regardless of his theories.

(You haven't answered a single question from me, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed this.)

Basically, even if you proved that twelve South American Heads of State completely believed in the pure innocence of Assange's motives, actions, and behaviour and even if you proved that Obama cried every night at the thought of a living, breathing, virile Assange then you still would not have proved that there weren't at least two women who were accusing him of vile actions that he could believably have done.

A court case where the claims of everyone could be put forth and tested by prosecution and defense would be better for that kind of thing.

Why would UNASUR want to throw one of their members under the bus that way?
[..]

Good.
So you are telling me that UNASUR declaration may be (in part or completely) politically motivated.
And then why the US/UK/Sweden actions may not be (in part or completely) politically motivated?

Originally Posted by theprestige

And I'll tell you what: The moment Lula presents evidence to support his claims about US involvement, I'll take his claims seriously.

You've presented Lula's claims as evidence to support your claims. But where's the evidence to support Lula's claims?

This discussion has been repeatly done over and over in the last few posts.
Please go back and read.

Good.
So you are telling me that UNASUR declaration may be (in part or completely) politically motivated.
And then why the US/UK/Sweden actions may not be (in part or completely) politically motivated?

And so the rape allegations are made up?

Really, you're trying to paint the perfect solution fallacy along with ad hom as valid. It's not working.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

The fact that the rape allegations are (or are not) made up is a separate issue from whether such allegations are (or are not) used for politicail reasons

No it isn't. If the allegations are not made up, and I don't think they are, then what has Sweden or the UK done wrong?

Let's say there are political motivations for pursuing charges, how would that change anything? If there are or aren't the actions would be the same.

The existence of motivations is not material to if justice and the law are being followed. How much someone might want to be doing something or not doesn't change if it is the right thing to do or not.

Assange should be sent back to Sweden.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

No it isn't. If the allegations are not made up, and I don't think they are,

And who exactly are you to say this?

Originally Posted by tyr_13

then what has Sweden or the UK done wrong?

They may use the issue to try to extradite Assange to the US

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Let's say there are political motivations for pursuing charges, how would that change anything? If there are or aren't the actions would be the same.

Agreed.
Assuming that the actions relevant to the case of Assange would be the same of other similar cases.
And that other cases where much greater crimes have been committed were pursued with the same or greater effort.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The existence of motivations is not material to if justice and the law are being followed. How much someone might want to be doing something or not doesn't change if it is the right thing to do or not.

Agreed.
If justice and law are followed consistently.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Assange should be sent back to Sweden.

And Pinochet should have been sent in front of a tribunal.
But that, did not happen.

I'm a person thinking with my own mind, or some such platitude you keep spouting. They aren't separate issues for your argument to matter.

Quote:

They may use the issue to try to extradite Assange to the US

What evidence do you have of this? None. You have speculation. So you agree they haven't done anything wrong yet.

Quote:

Agreed.
Assuming that the actions relevant to the case of Assange would be the same of other similar cases.
And that other cases where much greater crimes have been committed were pursued with the same or greater effort.

You've been given cases very much like Assange where there was a warrant and extradition.

Your 'greater crime' gambit is just again trying to use the perfect solution fallacy as if it were legitimate. There will always be bad mistakes. The existence of those mistakes means we should try harder to correct them, not let someone else get away with it too!

Quote:

Agreed.
If justice and law are followed consistently.

You're the one arguing that they not follow law or justice consistently and instead make special agreements which by the law they cannot give. You're the one who wants inconsistency and have argued as much.

Quote:

And Pinochet should have been sent in front of a tribunal.
But that, did not happen.

So? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Assange should be sent to Sweden to face the charges.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

So you are telling me that UNASUR declaration may be (in part or completely) politically motivated.

Oh, were you confused about this? I'm sorry. UNASUR is a political and diplomatic organization. Of course its declarations are politcally motivated.

That's why this declaration focuses on the political and diplomatic issue (asylum), and stays away from the legal issue (the Swedish rape case against Assange).

How did you not know this?

Quote:

And then why the US/UK/Sweden actions may not be (in part or completely) politically motivated?

Probably because both the UK and Sweden have legal systems that are independent of their political systems.

For example, that's why the Swedish government refuses to guarantee no extradition: Extradition is a legal issue in Sweden, not a political issue. Likewise the UK's action, which has also been legal, not political.

And of course there's no evidence at all that the US is taking any action--legal or political--in the Swedish rape case against Assange.

You think there's politics involved, you present the evidence. So far all the evidence points to legal action by Sweden and the UK, political action by Ecuador, and no action at all by the US.

Quote:

This discussion has been repeatly done over and over in the last few posts.
Please go back and read.

I have read the last few posts several times. None of them include any evidence to support Lula's claims of political action by the US, the UK, or Sweden. Where is that evidence?

If the US is behind it, why are they making it more difficult for themselves? It will be harder to extradite him to the US from Sweden than from the UK. Why do you keep ignoring this question?

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

This. Seriously: If the US wanted Assange dead, he would have had a terrible "accident" of some sort a long time ago. Its not like the CIA is rank amateurs after all.

__________________If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."Stop Sylvia Browne

I have read the last few posts several times. None of them include any evidence to support Lula's claims of political action by the US, the UK, or Sweden. Where is that evidence?

I've read the entire thread from the beginning. Unfortunately John Mekki is incapable of distinguishing evidence from opinion.

And is also incapable of answering a simple question:

Originally Posted by uke2se

Since you are still here, John, could you please answer the question you pathetically ran from before?

What would you prefer that the Swedish authorities did with this case. Should they dismiss it out of hand because it is possible that Assange didn't commit rape? Should they throw away the evidence because there exists a possibility that the evidence is flawed, or points to some other sequence of events that does not involve Assange raping two women?

What do you think they should do?

Please note that the Swedish government can't legally issue any more of a guarantee that Assange won't be extradited than the guarantee that all laws will be adhered to. Doing so would be an act of totalitarianism, and Sweden is a democratic country.

__________________Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke

Hell, from my point of view, it is better that he is rotting away in some embassy in London. He has proven himself to be a self absorbed megalomaniac, whose allies have deserted him and his movement is in shambles. Further, he has aligned himself with a country that has proven itself to be against free speech.

And all because of Julian's huge ego.

But I hear that some guys in South America wrote him a nice letter!

__________________"You do it to curry favour with a sky fairy who does not exist. .... Tough luck for you."

Oh, I agree. If I were the U.S., and I had anything to say to the UK and Sweden it would be:
Follow every rule. Dot every i. Cross every t. Let due process take as long as it needs to take. Longer, even. Don't treat Assange's confinement as a crisis. Treat it as a dull, ongoing policy. Compromise on nothing. Can Assange come out to be treated by a doctor? Sure. Sweden has doctors.

And Pinochet should have been sent in front of a tribunal.
But that, did not happen.

Can we all agree that the UK Courts and House of Lords both agreed to extradite and that it was an appeal to the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, based on his health that got Pinochet released, then move on based that as of the moment Assange is not in the same boat healthwise? (though I suspect that his lawyers are going to try for it...)

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)My Apollo Page.